<\body> \; <\doc-data|||<\doc-author-data> \; ||<\author-address> CEREMADE & CNRS UMR 7534 Université Paris-Dauphine |>|<\doc-author-data||<\author-address> Institut für Mathematik Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |> \; |<\doc-author-data|> \; \; \; <|doc-author-data> \; <|doc-author-data|<\author-address> Institut für Mathematik Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |> \; > \; |<\doc-date> . |<\doc-note> > <\abstract> We propose a theory of products of distributions in > with Besov regularity using techniques of paradifferential calculus and ideas from the theory of controlled rough paths. We apply this theory to solve a multi-dimensional Burgers type SPDE with rough space-time white noise, and a two-dimensional non-linear heat equation with rough space dependence. One of the main objectives of stochastic analysis is to understand local properties of stochastic processes. A paradigmatic example is given by the theory of diffusion processes, where the time-derivative B> of a Brownian motion plays the role of a universal model of small scale characteristics. The natural way to encode a large class of diffusions is to write them as a local perturbation of a Brownian path via a ``differential equation'', that tries to prescribe the variations of via those of :\ <\equation*> \X=f|)>\B. In analysis, Schwartz's theory of distributions gives a reasonable framework to talk about linear operations on irregular functions. But as soon as we try to handle non-linear operations like for example multiplying B> by an arbitrary function \\> of >, we run into problems. Itô's theory of integration is a possible approach to deal with these problems. Upon taking a time-integral, the product |)>\B> is defined to be the time derivate of the (Itô) stochastic integral <\equation> f|)>\B. This definition relies on the underlying probability > (since the limit is taken in |)>>) and moreover on the independence of the increments of the Brownian motion. Lyons' theory of rough paths gives an analytic answer to the problem of defining the above (and more general) stochastic objects. In this theory the integral() is defined via a deterministic procedure (not involving >), which depends only on the sample paths of and on the additional information provided by a regular version of the stochastic process (sometimes improperly called ``Levy area'') <\equation*> >X\B. In more general terms, Lyons has shown that there exists a universal way to associate to suitable couples >,>B\B|)>> of stochastic processes (or deterministic paths) a well defined notion of integral, which is broad enough to be able to deal sucessfully with stochastic differential equations and integrals like(). Rough path theory can handle objects that are more irregular than Brownian motion. However it is essentially limited to the class of continuous stochastic processes indexed by a one-dimensional parameter.\ There are approaches which deal with SPDEs and more generic stochastic processes. But they rely on special features of the problem at hand in order to be able to apply the integration theory provided by the rough path machinery. <\itemize-minus> Deya, Lejay, Tindel, and Gubinelli deal with SPDEs of the form <\equation*> \u|)>=\>u|)>+\|)>|)>\|)>, where \,\|]>>, > is a space-time Gaussian distribution (for example a white noise in time and colored in space), and > is some non-linear coefficient. They interpret this as an evolution equation (in time), taking values in a space of functions (wrt the space variable). They extend the rough path machinery to handle the convolutional integrals appearing due to the linear part.\ Friz, Caruana, Diehl, and Oberhauser deal with fully non-linear stochastic PDEs with a special structure. Among others, of the form <\equation*> \u|)>=F>u,\>u|)>+\|)>\>|)>|)>\|)>, which can be reinterpreted as a standard PDE with random coefficients via a change of variables involving the flow of the stochastic characteristics associated to >. Bessaih, Gubinelli, and Russo and Brzéniak, Gubinelli, and Neklyudov consider a PDE motivated by the description of the motion of a vortex line in an incompressible fluid. Rough path theory allows to make sense of this equation with random irregular initial vortex configurations. Here the irregularities appear along the direction of the (one-dimensional) variable parametrizing the vortex line.\ Hairer, Maas, and Weber , , , use the insights of rough path theory to study several SPDEs that are ill-defined in standard function spaces due to spatial irregularities. In all these works, the intrinsic one-dimensional nature of rough path theory severely limit possible improvements or applications to other contexts. To our knowledge, the only attempt to remove these limitations is the still unpublished work by Chouk and Gubinelli, extending rough path theory to handle the Brownian sheet (a two-parameter stochastic process akin to Brownian motion). \; In this paper we combine the notion of ``paraproducts'', coming from functional analysis, with ideas from the theory of controlled rough paths, in order to develop an algebraic theory for certain types of distributions that we call , and which appear in the analysis of PDEs and ODEs driven by stochastic non-linear signals. Since we do not use any integrals to construct the products, our approach works in any index dimension and constitutes a flexible generalization of rough path theory. Even if only implicitly, the relevance of the paraproduct approach has been remarked before in the work of Unterberger on the renormalization of rough paths , where it is referred to as ``Fourier normal-ordering'', and in the related work of Nualart and Tindel. To exemplify the applicability of our ideas, we will consider two SPDEs for which previously it was not known how to describe solutions: <\enumerate> A Burgers type SPDE driven by time-space white noise on the -dimensional torus > =\\|]>> with periodic boundary conditions: <\equation*> \u=-A u+g|)>\u+\, where \\\\> is a vector valued function, \ |)>>> is the fractional Laplacian with \1/2>, > is a space-time white noise taking values in > and > denotes the spatial derivative. Moreover \\;\|)>> is a smooth field of linear transformations of >. Here our results complement the results of. A non-linear heat equation with rough space dependence: <\equation*> \u=\u+f|)>\ where \>, > is a space white-noise which does not depend on time and \\> is a regular function.\ In both cases we will exibith a space of controlled distribution where the equations are well-posed (in a suitable sense) and admit a local solution. \; In Section we introduce the main concepts of Littlewood-Paley theory, Bony's paraproduct, and of controlled rough paths, and we present our basic ideas. Section develops the paradifferential calculus of controlled distributions. In Section we solve Burgers equation driven by white noise, and in Section we solve a non-linear heat equation with rough space dependence. We stress the fact that this paper is mostly self-contained and in particular we will not need any result on rough path theory. <\acknowledgments*> This research has been partly supported by the ANR Project ECRU (ANR-09-BLAN-0114-01). During an Oberwolfach workshop this summer (August 2012), M.Hairer discussed with one of us (M.G.) his approach to extend rough path theory which, at the time of writing these lines, is still unpublished. While different in nature, the approach we present and his seem to go in the same direction, and we foresee a very exciting period where these techniques will be applied to ever more complex and difficult problems. M.G. would like to thank M. Hairer also for suggesting as an application the 2d non-linear parabolic Anderson model discussed below.\ Throughout the paper we use the notation B> if there exists a constant , independent of the variables under consideration, such that C\B>, and we write B> if B> and A>. If we want to emphasize the dependence of on the variable , then we write B>. For index variables and > of Littlewood-Paley decompositions (to be defined below) we write \> if there exists \>, independent of >, such that \+N>, and we write \> if \> and \j>. For a multiindex =,\,\|)>\\> we write |\|>=\+\+\> and >=|\|>>|\>>\\>>>>. For ,\,x|)>\\> we write >=x>\x>>. > denotes the differential. We call any set of the form =\:a\\b|}>> for some a\b>. A is a set of the form =\:\b|}>>. The space of real valued infinitely differentiable functions of compact support is denoted by |)>> or >. The space of Schwartz functions is denoted by |)>> or >. Its dual, the space of tempered distributions, is |)>> or >. If is a vector of tempered distributions on >, then we write \,\|)>>. The Fourier transform is defined with the normalization <\equation*> \u|)>=|)>=>e|\,x|\>>u\x, so that the inverse Fourier transform is given by u|)>=|)>\u|)>>. If > is a smooth function which is at most of polynomial growth at infinity, then we define |)>u=\\u|)>> for any \>. Let \,\\\> be nonnegative radial functions such that <\enumerate-roman> the support of > is contained in a ball and the support of > is contained in an annulus; |)>+0>\\|)>=1> for all \\>; |)>\supp\|)>|)>=\> for 1> and if \1>, then \|)>|)>\supp\|)>|)>=\>. For the existence of > and > see , Proposition 2.10. The Littlewood-Paley blocks are now defined as <\equation*> \u=\\u|)>and for j\0\u=\(2\)\u|)>\\. Then u=\u> and for 0> u=h\u>, where =\\> and =2\\\|)>>, and in particular the u> are smooth functions. For \\>, the Hölder-Besov space >> is given by >=B>,\>,\|)>>, where for |]>> <\equation*> B>,\|)>=\,\|)>:|u|\<\|\|\>>>>=-1>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|)>>\\|}>, with the usual interpretation as >> norm in case >. While the norm |\|\<\|\|\>>>>> depends on the dyadic partition of unity ,\|)>>, the space >> does not, and any other dyadic partition of unity corresponds to an equivalent norm. We will usually write |\|\<\|\|\>>>> instead of |\|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>>. A generic element C>> is a distribution for which |f|\<\|\|\>>>=sup-1> 2k>|\f|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\+\>, and we have -1>\f>. We also use the notation f=k-1>\f>. If \|)>\\>, then >> is the space of |\|\>> times differentiable functions, whose partial derivatives up to order |\|\>> are bounded, and whose partial derivatives of order |\|\>> are (-|\|\>>)-Hölder continuous, see p. 99 of . For \>, we denote by =C,\|)>> the space of times continuously differentiable functions whose partial derivatives up to order are bounded, with norm |f|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|>\n>|\>f|\<\|\|\>>>>>. Note that the Hölder-Besov space > is strictly larger than >. We will use without comment that |\|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>> for \\>, |\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>> for \0>, and |\|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>>> for \0>. We also use |\\u|\<\|\|\>>>\2|)>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>> and that for \0> and C>> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>>\2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>. At this point we should point out that everything above and everything we develop in the following can (and will) be applied to distributions on the torus. More precisely, define =[-\,\]> and let |)>> be the space of distributions on >. Then any \|)>> can be interpreted as a >-periodic tempered distribution on >, with frequency spectrum contained in > - and vice versa. For details see , Chapter 3.2. In particular u> is a >-periodic smooth function, and therefore |\u|\<\|\|\>>>>=|\u|\<\|\|\>>>|\>)>>. For further details concerning Littlewood-Paley theory, Besov spaces, and paraproducts, we refer to the nice book of Bahouri, Chemin and Danchin . In general, the product of two distributions C>> and C>> is not well defined unless *+\\0>. \ In terms of Littlewood-Paley blocks a product can be (at least formally) decomposed as <\equation*> *f*g=-1>-1>\f*\g=\>+\>+\> where >> is the part of the double sum with j-1>, >> the part with j+1> and >> the ``diagonal'' part where \1>: <\equation*> \>=-1>\f*\g,\>=\>,\>=\>+\> and <\equation*> \>=\1>\f*\g . \ This decomposition is referred to as paraproduct , and it behaves nicely with respect to Littlewood-Paley theory. Of course the decomposition depends on the dyadic partition of unity used to define the blocks > and also on the particular choice for the pairs > in the diagonal part. Bony's crucial observation is that >> (and thus >>) is always a well defined distribution. In particular, for \0> and \\>, >> is a bounded bilinear operator from >\C>> with values in >>. Heuristically >> behaves at large frequencies like (and thus retains the same regularity) and provides only a modulation of at larger scales. The only difficulty to define for arbitrary distributions lies in handling the diagonal term >>. A basic result about this bilinear operation is given by the classical paraproduct estimates: <\theorem> (Theorem 2.82 and 2.85 of ) <\enumerate-numeric> For any \\>, <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>> and for \0>, <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\,\>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>> ; For +\\0>, <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\,\>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>. Which have as a natural corollary the fact that the product of two elements C>> and C>> is well defined as soon as +\\0>. The attentive reader will note immediately the analogy of this statement with one of the possible incarnations of Young's theory of integration, that is the fact that for C>|)>> and C>|)>> (here ,\\0>) the integral <\equation*> I=f\g is well defined (as limit of Riemann sums) as soon as +\\1>. On the other side it is clear from paraproduct techniques that if +\\1>, then the distribution g> is well defined and belongs to +\-1>>. \ Another basic fact of Young integration is also that\ <\equation> -I-f-g|)>|\|>\+\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|g|\<\|\|\>>> which means that the increments of the integral behave locally (in the parameter) like the increments of , modulo a small remainder. Taking derivatives in the sense of distributions we have I=f\g> and moreover Bony's paraproduct and the related estimates allow us to see that <\equation*> \I-\>g|)>=\>g|)>+\>g|)>\C+\-1>. This is an alternative form of the Young estimate() which has however the advantage to be readily available for distributions in > for arbitrary dimension 1>. By now it should also be clear why we insist to distinguish the two ``symmetric'' paraproducts >> and >>: indeed in this application (which will motivate all the developments of this paper) the two terms >g|)>> and >g|)>> play very different roles: the first >g|)>> is akin to the first-order approximation -g|)>> of the integral -I>, in the sense that the distribution >g|)>> is always well defined and behaves ``locally'' (here meaning for high Fourier modes) like g>, while the term >g|)>> \ belongs to +\-1>> and it is ``smoother'' than the main contribution >g|)>> (which belongs only to -1>>). Lyons' theory of rough paths , see also the monographs , , , allows to go beyond Young's theory of integration by stipulating the ``existence'' of basic integrals and defining a large class of related integrals as their functions. While we do not rely on any particular result of rough path theory it could be useful for the reader to have a shallow knowledge of this theory since it constitutes the basic inspiration for the constructions set up below.\ \; Assume we are given two functions C>|)>> (for simplicity we assume the same regularity index, even this is not strictly necessary) an associated (Riemann) integral <\equation*> \=x\y=x-y|)>+A for which the following estimate on the remainder is available <\equation> |\|>\>. Usually this remainder is called (improperly) the ``area'' of and . This name has its root in the fact that its antisymmetric part -A|)>> corresponds to the algebraic area spanned by the curve ,y|)>>> on the plane >. The integral > cannot be constructed via Young's theory unless \1>. However if we have some mean to obtain a function > satisfying the basic estimate() and the condition \1> is satisfied, then rough path theory gives a general procedure to show the existence and uniqueness of a consistent definition of the integral <\equation*> I=f\g for all respectively ``controlled'' by and , i.e. such that there exist ,g\C>> for which <\equation*> -f-f-x|)>|\|>\> and a similar estimate for >, see and . Indeed the integral > is uniquely identified by the requirement that <\equation*> I=I+f-g|)>+f*gA+O>|)>. We will leave to the reader the easy exercise to show that this requirement is enough to have uniqueness. Note that this definition is consistent with the Riemann and Young integrals whenever these are all defined. In particular it is self-consistent in the sense that if we consider as paths controlled by themselves via =1> and =1>, we have =\>. This result can be interpreted in the theory of (one-dimensional) distributions as saying that there exists a consistent definition of the distribution g> whenever are controlled by respectively and a suitable definition for y> is available.\ This (rough) statement will be made rigorous in the following in such a way that the dimensionality of the base space do not play any role whatsoever. To do so will be convenient to abstract from the specific problem of Riemann integration theory and to consider it as a problem of extending the point-wise multiplication operation via a continuity argument.\ Apart from the existence of the integral, the theory of controlled paths is built on the following two basic facts: <\enumerate-roman> if is controlled by and > is a smooth function, then > is still controlled by , if is controlled by then > is controlled by . These two properties allow to consider the space of controlled paths as a Banach algebra which is stable by non-linear maps and integration. In particular the space of paths controlled by a basic path (which may take its values in a finite-dimensional vector space) is the natural setting where to solve rough differential equations of the form <\equation*> f=f+\|)>\y. with fixed point methods. All that is needed is the existence of an area process > for (which would be a 2-tensor in case is a vector) enjoying suitable regularity.\ \ Consider now the product of distributions y> where C>>. A priori this is not well defined if \1/2>. As we have already seen, Bony's paraproduct induces the decomposition <\equation*> f\y=\>y|)>+\>y|)>+\>y|)>, where the only problematic term is >y|)>>. Assume now that the distribution is controlled by C>> in the following sense <\definition> C>> is controlled by C>> if there exists \C>> such that <\equation*> f>=f-\>,x|)>\C>. Then (at least formally) we can decompose the problematic term as <\equation*> \>y|)>=\>>,x|)>,\y|)>+\>>,\y|)> where >>,\y|)>> is well defined if we assume that -1\0>, and >>,\y|)>\C-1>>. It turns out (see theorem below) that, although >>,x|)>,\y|)>> is a-priori not well defined, the ``commutator'' <\equation*> R,x,\y|)>=\>>,x|)>,\y|)>-f\>y|)> can be defined and belongs to -1>>. In this way we have reduced the problem of defining the product y> for any \ function controlled by essentially to the problem of defining the product y> as in the theory of controlled paths explained above. It turns out that this works for general distributions: as long as >> is well defined, smooth enough, and and are controlled by and respectively, also >> (and thus ) can be defined in a sensible way. Moreover if we define > by A=\>y|)>> and that this last quantity is well defined and belongs to -1>>, we get the expansion formula <\equation*> z=f\y=\>y|)>+\>y|)>+f\A+z>, where <\equation*> z>=R,x,\y|)>+\>>,\y|)>\C-1>. \; All this holds in any dimension. If we consider the one-dimensional setting, we can introduce the indefinite integral map and obtain <\equation*> Iy|)>=I\>y|)>+I\>y|)>+I\A|)>+I>|)>. Since it is possible to show that for any \\> (used to localize the integral) <\equation*> \>y|)>-\>|)>\C>, we finally obtain that y|)>> is a function controlled by according to our previous definition. From here we can then solve ODEs in the weak from <\equation*> \z=\\x by fixed point methods.\ Motivated by the considerations of the previous section here we lay out some elements of a calculus of controlled distributions. We start from the analysis of the commutator which allows to define the diagonal term of the product as a function of the diagonal term for special ``reference'' distributions.\ <\theorem> Let +\+\\0> +\\0>>. Then the ``commutator'' <\equation*> R=\>>,y|)>-f*\> is well defined for all C>>, C>>, C>>, and belongs to +\+\>>: <\equation*> |R|\<\|\|\>>+\+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> It is enough to prove the bound for smooth since then by approximation we can prove that the commutator is well defined in full generality. Consider <\equation*> R=\>>,y|)>-f*\> <\equation*> =>\\-1>\\1>\f*\>x|)>\y->\-j|\|>\1>\f*\>x\y <\equation*> =A+B+C, where <\equation*> A=>\\-1>\\1>f*\>x|)>\y-\f\*>x|)>\y|)>, <\equation*> B=>\\-1>\1>-\-j|\|>\1>|)>\f\*>x|)>\y, <\equation*> C=->\-j|\|>\1>\\-1>\f*\>x\y, and where in we used the fact that <\equation*> >\\-1>\-j|\|>\1>\f\>x\y=>\\-1>\-j|\|>\1>\f\*>x|)>\y . <\with|color|black> Consider the first of these terms: <\equation*> A=>\\-1>\\1>f*\>x|)>-\f\*>x|)>|)>|)>\y=a. For fixed the Fourier transform of > has its support in a suitable ball \>. Since +\+\\0>, the estimate for follows once we show that |a|\<\|\|\>>>>\2-\-\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>>, cf. Lemma 2.84 of . But <\equation*> |a|\<\|\|\>>>>=|>\\-1>\\1>f*\>x|)>-\f\*>x|)>|)>|)>\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \>\\-1>\\1>|\f*\>x|)>-\f\*>x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> =>\\-1>\\1>\\>|f,\|]>\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>>, where f,\|]>> is the commutator. By Lemma 2.97 of , <\equation*> |f,\|]>\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>\2|\f|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>\22|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>2\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>, and therefore <\equation*> |a|\<\|\|\>>>>\j>2|)>>2-\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>\2-\-\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. Let us now analyze the second term . By symmetry of and > we have <\equation*> B=>\\-1>\1>-\-j|\|>\1>|)>\f\*>x|)>\y \; <\equation*> =>\-1>\\1>-\\-1>\-j|\|>\1>|)>\f\>x|)>\y <\equation*> =>i-1>-\\-1>|)>\-j|\|>\1>\f\*>x|)>\y <\equation*> =>-1\k\i-1>-\k\\-1>|)>\-j|\|>\1>\f\*>x|)>\y. <\equation*> \; But of course *>x|)>\0> only for |\|>\1>, so that \\i> and we can restrict the summations to the set \\i\j>, which directly leads to <\equation*> |\B|\<\|\|\>>>>\>\k\\\i\j>2-j\-\\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>\2+\+\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>> if +\+\\0>. Hence we get C+\+\>>. It remains to estimate the term <\equation*> C=->\-j|\|>\1>\\-1>\f*\>x\y, for which there exists 0>, independent of ,p>, such that <\equation*> |\C|\<\|\|\>>>>\>\-j|\|>\1>\\-1>|\f*\>x\y|)>|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \>\\\j\k>|\f*\>x\y|\<\|\|\>>>>+>\\j\\p>|\f*\>x\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \>\\\j\k>2-j\-\\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+>\\j\\p>2-j\-\\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \2+\+\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>, since +\+\\0> and +\\0>. <\corollary> Let \0>, +\+\\0>, but +\\0>. Let C>>, C>>, C>>. Then <\equation*> R=\>>,\>|)>-f*g*\> is well defined and in +\+\>>, and <\equation*> |R|\<\|\|\>>+\+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|g|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> We have <\equation*> \>>,\>|)>-f*g*\> <\equation*> =\>>,\>|)>-f**\>>|)>+f**\>>|)>-f*g*\>. The result now follows by Theorem and by the paraproduct estimates, using \\+\+\> for the second term. The following ``commutator'' estimate will be used for example to show the stability of controlled distributions under non-linear maps. It is a slight generalization of Theorem 2.3 in . <\lemma> Let \0>, \\>, L>>, C>>, and C>>. Then <\equation*> |\>>|)>-\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> We have <\equation*> \>>|)>-\>=f\>|)>-S\y|)>, and the terms of the series have Fourier transforms with support in a suitable annulus \>. By Lemma 2.69 of , it suffices to control |Sf\>|)>-S\y|\<\|\|\>>>>>. sAgain we use a decomposition in three terms, <\equation*> Sf\>|)>-S\y=A+B+C, where <\equation*> A=Sf\>|)>-Sf \>y|)>, <\equation*> B=Sf \>y|)>-Sf Sx\y,C=Sf Sx\y-S\y. Now <\equation*> A=>Sf(S-1>x\>y)-S-1>x\>x\y|]>=:-j|\|>\N>Sf-1>x,\|]>\>y for a suitable . Next we use the commutator estimate Lemma 2.97 of , and in the second step that -j|\|>\N> <\equation*> |Sf-1>x,\|]>\>y|\<\|\|\>>>>\|Sf|\<\|\|\>>>>2|\S-1>x|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>>22|)>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>>=2+\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>, |Sf|\<\|\|\>>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>>, which follows by writing > as a convolution operator and then applying Young's inequality.> Next, <\equation*> B=Sf \>y|)>-Sf Sx\y=:-j|\|>\1>Sf-1>x-Sx|)>\>\y, and <\equation*> |:\|\-j\|\1>Sf(S-1>x-Sx)\>\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \|Sf\x\>\y|\<\|\|\>>>>+|Sf\x\>\y|\<\|\|\>>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|x|\<\|\|\>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. \; The remaining term is <\equation*> C=Sf Sx\y-S\y=>\f S\>x-Sf\>x|)>|)>\y. For \j-3>, the two terms cancel. For j> or \j>, the first term vanishes, whereas the second term only vanishes if also |\|>\N> for a suitable . Note that can be chosen independently of , because for , =j+n>, the Fourier transform of f\>x> has its support in \+2\|)>>, where > is the annulus in which > from the definition of the dyadic partition of unity has its support. Thus <\equation*> |>(S\f S\>x-S(\f\>x))\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \=j-2>|S\f S\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>+|S(\f\>x)|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> +=j>>|\|>\N>|S(\f\>x))\y|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|x|\<\|\|\>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+=j>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>2>|y|\<\|\|\>>>\2+\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>, since \0>. In this section we define the product of two controlled distributions and study continuity properties of the product operator. For simplicity we restrict to the case when the distributions are one-dimensional. The distributions can be multi-dimensional. The general (finite-dimensional) case can then by treated by considering the components separately. To obtain a more symmetric theory, we slightly generalize the definition of controlled distributions. <\definition> Let \0>, \\>. C>> is controlled by C>> if there exists \C>> such that <\equation*> f>=f-\>,x|)>\C+\>. We write \,\>> and define <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>,\>=|f|\<\|\|\>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>+|f>|\<\|\|\>>+\>. <\example> If > is the regularity of a first order derivative, say =s-1> for some ||]>0,1>>, then we will usually take =s>, so that +\=2s-1>. To fix ideas, we first define the product for given >> and controlled by , where has positive regularity and has negative regularity. <\lemma> Let \0\\> and +\+\\0>, but +\\0>. Let C>>, C>>, and assume <\equation*> \>=\1>\x \y\C+\>. For \,\>> we define <\equation*> f\y=\>+\>>,y|)>+R,x,y|)>+f\>\\,\> with derivative , for which <\equation*> |f\y|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>,\>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>. If further \C>>, \C>>, >,|)>\C+\>>, and \\,\>>>, then <\equation> |f\y-\>|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \|f-|\<\|\|\>>>+|f->|\<\|\|\>>>+|f>->|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)> <\equation*> +|y-|\<\|\|\>>>+|x-|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>-\>,|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>||\<\|\|\>>,\,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|y|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. <\proof> Since \0> and \0>, the paraproduct estimates give <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>> and <\equation*> |\>>,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\>>,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\+\>\|f>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. Theorem implies <\equation*> |R,x,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|R,x,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>. Since +\+\\0>, again the paraproduct estimates give <\equation*> |f\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f\>|\<\|\|\>>+\+\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>. The result follows after noting that for all terms we were able to estimate at least the |\|\<\|\|\>>+\>> norm, except for >>, where we could only get an estimate for the |\|\<\|\|\>>>> norm. Now let \ \C>>, \C>>, >,|)>\C+\>>, and \\,\>>>. Then we use the multi-linearity of the operators under consideration to get the decomposition <\equation*> f\y-\>=\>,y|)>+\>,y-|)>+\>>->,y|)>+\>>,y-|)> <\equation*> +R-,x,y|)>+R,x-,y|)>+R,,y-|)> <\equation*> +-|)>\>+|~>>-\>,|)>|)>. The claimed estimate now follows from paraproduct estimates and from Theorem . It is now easy to generalize to the case when is controlled by and is controlled by . To simplify notation, we restrict our attention to the case when \,\>> and \,\>>. The situation \,\>> and \,\>> can be treated analogously at the price of distinguishing the cases \\> and \\>. <\theorem> Let \0\\> and +\\0>, but +2\\0>. Let C>>, C>>, and <\equation*> \>=\1>\x \y\C+\>. Let \,\>> and \,\>>. We define for as in Corollary <\equation*> f\g=\>+\>>,g|)>+\>>,x|)>,g>|)>+R,g,x,y|)>+fg\>. Then g\\,\>> with derivative >, and <\equation*> |f\ g|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>,\>|g|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>. If further \C>>, \C>>, >,|)>\C+\>>, and \\,\>>>, \\,\>>>, then <\equation> |f\g-\,>|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \|f-|\<\|\|\>>>+|f->|\<\|\|\>>>+|f>->|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)> <\equation*> \|g|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)> <\equation*> +|g-|\<\|\|\>>>+|g->|\<\|\|\>>>+|g>->|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)> <\equation*> \||\<\|\|\>>,\,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)> <\equation*> +|y-|\<\|\|\>>>+|x-|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>-\>,|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>||\<\|\|\>>,\,\>||\<\|\|\>>,\,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|y|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. <\proof> By the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma , now using Corollary instead of Theorem , we obtain that g> is controlled by and <\equation*> |f\g|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>,\>|g|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>. Next <\equation*> |f\g-\>,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\|f\g-\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>+|\>>,y|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\> <\equation*> +|\>>,y|)>|)>-\>,y|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>,\>|g|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|g>|\<\|\|\>>+\>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|g|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>> applying Lemma to the last term. Thus <\equation*> |f\g|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>,\>|g|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|y|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>|\<\|\|\>>+\>|)>. The estimate for |f\g-\,>|\<\|\|\>>>> is obtained exactly as in the proof of Lemma . <\definition> \\|)>> is called bump function if \1> in a neighborhood of 0. Recall that if is a smooth function which is at most of polynomial growth at infinity, then |)>u=\u|)>> for any \>. When there is no ambiguity about the bump function under consideration, we write >=\\|)>u> for \>. It would be natural to define \0>f>g>>, whenever the limit exists. Below we show that this works as long as >\C+\>>, +\\0>, and \,\>>, \,\>>, and that the limit does not depend on the bump function >. But first we need to examine how controlled distributions behave under convolution smoothing. <\lemma> Let C>> and \,\>>. Let > be a bump function. Then >\\,\>>>> with derivative >, and we denote the remainder by >>>. For every \\> we have\ <\equation*> lim\0>|f-f>|\<\|\|\>>>+|f>-f>>|\<\|\|\>>+\>=0. <\proof> Since both >> and >,x>|)>> are in >> for arbitrary >, >> is trivially in ,\>>>>. Convergence of |f-f>|\<\|\|\>>>> to 0 is easily shown since \\>. It remains to show <\equation*> lim\0>|f>-f>>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\lim\0>|f>-\(\\)f>|\<\|\|\>>+\>+|\(\\)\>(f,x)-\>(f,x>)|\<\|\|\>>+\>|}>=0. Convergence for the first term is again easy. Let us treat the second term. The Fourier transform of -1>f\>x> has its support in a suitable annulus >\>. So if \\\2>, then there exists \>, independent of >, such that <\equation*> \\|)>\>,x|)>-\>,x>|)>==-1>\|)>-1>f\>x|)>-S-1>f\>\\|)>x|)>. On the other side for small >, \|)>-1>f\>x|)>=S-1>f\>x> and >\\|)>x=\>x>. So in fact <\equation*> \\|)>\>,x|)>-\>,x>|)>==n-N>\|)>-1>f\>x|)>-S-1>f\\|)>\>x|)> <\equation*> ==n-N>-1>f,\\|)>|]>\>x, where we may have to take a new , which however will still be independent of >. Since the Fourier transform of -1>f,\\|)>|]>\>x> has its support in a suitable annulus >|~>>, it suffices to estimate |-1>f,\\|)>|]>\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>> and to then apply Lemma 2.69 of . Lemma 2.97 of gives for \> <\equation*> |>,S-1>f|]>\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>\\|\S-1>f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>x|\<\|\|\>>>>\ \2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>2\>|x|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \2(-\-\)>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>, so that for any \\> <\equation*> |\>\>,x|)>-\>,\>x|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\2-\|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>\\-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>. \; <\corollary> Let \0\\> and +\\0> but +2\\0>. Let C>>, C>>, and <\equation*> \>=\1>\x \y\C+\>, where we assume that |\>-\>>,y>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\0> for all \\>. Let \,\>> and \,\>>, and let > be a bump function. Then <\equation*> f\g=lim\0>f>g>, where convergence takes place in >> for any \\>. <\proof> We note that >g>=f>\>,y>>g>>. This holds because the term >>,x>|)>,\>,y>|)>|)>> in the definition of ,g,x>,y>|)>> is well defined on its own. Now it suffices to combine () with Lemma . Since \\>, convergence for all ``classically defined'' terms is easily obtained using the fact that |\>-\>>,y>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>\0>. <\remark> We showed that g> can be defined without reference to or . So from now on we write , unless we want to stress that the product of controlled paths is considered.\ Note however that that the definition of depend on the special choice of >>. From the theory of rough paths it is known that in one index dimension there is no canonical definition of >> beyond the Young setting, and in fact there are infinitely many possible choices. The assumption >>,y>|)>\\>> is the key to obtain convergence of >g>> to in this case. Other choices for >> lead to ``renormalized'' products. We will show an example in Section Here we establish stability of controlled distributions under non-linear maps and under multiplication by smooth functions. Without loss of generality, we still assume the controlled distributions to be one-dimensional, whereas the controlling distributions can take their values in > for arbitrary . Let us prove a simple form of the paralinearization theorem for C>> with \>, that is\ <\equation*> f-\>,u|)>\C> for any C>. We define <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>>=\n>|\>f|\<\|\|\>>>>. \; The basic lemma we will use is the following (a specialization of Lemma 2.88 of ). <\lemma> Let \0> and let |)>> a sequence of smooth functions such that <\equation*> |\|>\\\+1|}>>2-|\|>|)>>|\>u|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>\\>|)> then u\C>> and\ <\equation*> |u|\<\|\|\>>>>\>||\|>\\\+1|}>>2-|\|>|)>>|\>u|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>. <\proof> Write |\|\>+1> and let be a constant such that <\equation*> |\>u|\<\|\|\>>>>\C2-|\|>|)>> for all |\|>\>. Then for -1> by Bernstein's inequality, Lemma 2.1 of , <\equation*> 2i>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup|\|>=n>2-n|)>i>|\>\u|\<\|\|\>>>>=sup|\|>=n>2-n|)>i>|\\>u|\<\|\|\>>>>\2-n|)>>C and similarly for |\|>=0> and -1>. If j> choose |\|>=0> and if j> choose |\|>=n>, so that for all <\equation*> 2i>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>\Ci>2-n|)>>+i>2\>|)>\>C. \; <\theorem> Let \>. If C>> and C>, then <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|>. <\proof> Start with the telescopic sum <\equation*> f-f=u|)>-fu|)>|)> and compute the Taylor expansion for each term: <\equation*> \=fu|)>-fu|)>=*fu+\\u|)>\\*\u. Now <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>\2j>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>> and <\equation*> |\\|\<\|\|\>>>>=|fu|)>\Su-fu|)>\Su|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \|u|)>-fu|)>|)>\Su|\<\|\|\>>>>+|fu|)>\\u|\<\|\|\>> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\Su|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\\u|\<\|\|\>>>>\2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>, since \0>. So by the previous lemma we get <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|>. \; We prove now a slight generalization of the paralinearization theorem, allowing for smooth perturbations. The key point is that the norm of the smooth perturbation appears only linearly in the estimate. This will be needed later when solving Burgers type SPDEs. <\theorem> Let \>. If C>>, C>>, and C> with =0>, then <\equation*> |f-\>,u|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>u\<\|\|\>>|)>. In particular for general C>, not necessarily satisfying =0>, <\equation*> |f-\>,u|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>u\<\|\|\>>|)>. <\proof> We will apply Lemma to the series <\equation*> f-\>,u|)>=f, where <\equation*> f=f|)>-f|)>-Sf\u. We do a Taylor expansion up to second order: <\equation*> f(u+v)|)>-f(u+v)|)>=*f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>\\*u+\v|)> <\equation*> =*f(u+v)|)>*\u+*|)>f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>\\*\*\u <\equation*> +*f+\\|)>\\*\v. Now <\equation*> f(u+v)|)>=f+j>(u+v)|)>-f(u+v)|)>|)> <\equation*> =Sf+j-1>\f+j>|)>-f|)>|)> <\equation> =Sf+j-1>\f-j>*f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>\\*\. So =+\+\+\|)>>, where <\equation*> \=j-1>\f\u,\=-j>*fu+v+\\u|)>\\*\\u, <\equation*> \=*|)>fu+v+\\u|)>\\*\\u, <\equation*> \=*f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>\\*\v. Therefore <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \j-1>2>|f|\<\|\|\>>>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+j>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> +|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|v|\<\|\|\>>>, which we estimate using Theorem <\equation*> \2>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|}> <\equation*> \2>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. We use a different approach to treat the derivatives, just as in the proof of the paralinearization theorem given in . We have <\equation*> \f=\(u+v))-f(S(u+v))-Sf(u+v)\u|)> <\equation*> =f(u+v)|)>\S-f|)>\S <\equation*> -\f|)>\u-Sf\\u <\equation*> =\+\+\+\, where <\equation*> \=|)>-f|)>|)>\Su, <\equation*> \=f|)>\Sv-f|)>\Sv, <\equation*> \=|)>-Sf|)>\\u,\=\f|)>\u. Using first a Taylor expansion for >, and then that \0>, <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>\*|f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*|\|\<\|\|\>>>>|S\u|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>2|)>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>-1>\2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>. Since \0>, > can be easily estimated by <\equation> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\Sv|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|\Sv|\<\|\|\>>>>\2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>. Using () and since \0> we obtain from Theorem <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>=|j-1>\f-j>*f(u+v)+\\(u+v)|)>\\*\|)>\\u|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \j-1>2>|f|>2|)>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>-1>+j>|\<\|\|\>>f|\<\|\|\>>>>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>2|)>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>-1> <\equation*> \2|)>>{|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|f|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|}> <\equation> \2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. Finally <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|Sf|)>|>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>\2|)>>|\<\|\|\>>\f|\<\|\|\>>-1>2>|u|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation> \2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>, where we used Theorem again. Combining ()--(), <\equation*> |\f|\<\|\|\>>>>\2|)>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. \; <\theorem> Let \0> and \,\>>, with derivative >. Let C>> and C>. Then \\,\>> with derivative u>, and <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>> |)>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>|)>. <\with|color|black> <\proof> We have <\equation*> f-\>u,x|)>=f-\>,u|)>+\>,u-\>,x|)>|)> <\equation*> +\>,\>,x|)>|)>-\>u,x|)>. By Theorem <\equation*> |f-\>,u|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>|)>. Paraproduct estimates give <\equation*> |\>(f(u+v),u-\>(u,x))|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u-\>,x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>. Finally Lemma gives <\equation*> |\>,\>,x|)>|)>-\>u,x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>. \; If \0>, the space of controlled distributions is an algebra. <\lemma> Let \0> and \,\>>, with derivatives ,v> respectively. Then \,\>> with derivative v+u v>, and <\equation*> |u v|\<\|\|\>>,\>\|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\>|x|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. <\proof> The estimates for |u v|\<\|\|\>>>> and |uv+u v|\<\|\|\>>>> are straightforward. For the remainder note that <\equation*> u v=\>>,x|)>|)>+\>>,x|)>,v|)>+R, where <\equation*> |R|\<\|\|\>>>=|\>>|)>+\>+\>>,v|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|u|\<\|\|\>>,\>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\>. By Lemma we have <\equation*> |\>>,x|)>|)>-\>,x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|u|\<\|\|\>>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>> and since and are one-dimensional <\equation*> |\>>,x|)>,v|)>-\>v,x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\>>,x|)>|)>-\>,x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|v|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\<\|\|\>>>, which completes the proof. Consider the SPDE <\equation*> \u=-A u+g\u+\, where |)>>> is the fractional Laplacian and we will take \1/2>. > is a space-time white noise taking values in > and > denotes the spatial derivative. Moreover \\;\|)>> is a smooth field of linear transformations of >. \ We consider this equation on the -dimensional torus =\\|]>> with periodic boundary conditions. Recall from Section that our results on > carry over to this setting without problem. Note that if 1> it is not possible in general to find a function \\> such that the formula <\equation*> g\u=\|)> holds (at least for smooth enough ). This prevents a direct definition of the term \u> as a distribution. Moreover we will see that the natural regularity of the solutions is too low to guarantee that the non-linear term is well defined. This will come out once we will take into account the particular type of small scale random fluctuation of a typical solving the equation (or, better, a typical lying in a large enough space to contain solutions to the equation). \ \; The approach of Hairer in the case of a one-dimensional spatial index set is to use a flow decomposition. Consider the mild solution > to the equation <\equation*> \\=|)>\+\ for a correction term \0> (needed for the existence of stationary solutions) and define > to be the mild solution to the equation <\equation*> \\=-A \+g+\|)>\+\|)>+\\, obtained by setting +\>. The main problem then lies in making sense of the term <\equation*> Sg+\|)>\+\|)>\s. Hairer's key insight is that for the theory of controlled rough paths can be used to make sense of the product +\|)>\+\|)>>. A suitable extension of this approach to higher dimensions is naturally provided by the notion of controlled distributions. Indeed by devising a suitable area distribution, we can make sense of the product <\equation*> g+\|)>\+\|)> on its own, before applying the heat semigroup to it. We can now combine the previously derived continuity properties of our paraproduct with smoothing properties of the heat flow to obtain the existence and uniqueness of solutions. The first step is to analyze the stationary solution > to <\equation> \\=|)>\+\. Let |^>> be the space Fourier transform of >: |^>=|)>>e\>\|)>\\> for \>. It follows from standard results that |^>> is a complex valued stationary Gaussian process with zero mean and covariance <\equation> \|^>|^>|)>|]>=\*\=0> +>|)>/2>|\+>>\ for ,n>, \\> and \>. Our first concern is to have a version of the process > living in Besov space.\ <\lemma> For any \\-d/2>, the stationary solution > to () is almost surely in ,C>,\|)>|)>>. <\proof> Let \> and -1>. We write =f-f> for any defined on >. Writing > as a convolution operator, we see that \> is a Gaussian process indexed by > with values in >. By Gaussian hypercontractivity we can bound for 1> <\equation*> \|\\|\<\|\|\>>|)>>\|\\|\|>|]>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>, where we denote |f|\<\|\|\>>|)>>=>|\|>\z>. Now we write <\equation*> \\=|)>\>\\|)>|^>e|k,z|\>>. Since > is real valued, we have |^>>=\>, and therefore we easily obtain from () that for i\n> and independently of <\equation*> \\|\|>|]>=|)>2\>\k|)>+>|)>/2>|\+>>\. For any \0> this is estimated by <\equation*> \supp\|)>|)>>+>|)>/2>|\+>>\>\2>+>|)>>>\>2|)>|)>>. Since is arbitrarily large, Kolmogorov's continuity criterion, Theorem I.2.1 of , implies that > has a continuous version such that \C,B>|)>> for all \\-d/2>. Since is arbitrarily large, the Besov embedding theorems, Proposition 2.71 in , imply also that for all \\-d/2> we can have a time continuous version which takes values in >|)>>. \ Now let us consider the area process. <\lemma> Let > be the stationary solution to (). If \0>, then for any \\-d/2> almost surely <\equation*> \>,\\|)>\C;C-1>;\\\|)>|)>. <\proof> Without loss of generality we can argue for >,\\|)>>. The case >,\\|)>> is easy, because by Leibniz' rule >,\\|)>=\\>,\|)>>. Projecting onto the -th dyadic Fourier block gives <\equation*> \\>,\\|)>=\1>\\\\\|)>=\1>\i>\\\\\|)> <\equation*> \; since when is smaller than for some we have u\\v|)>=0> for all . Then <\equation*> \|\>,\\|)>|]>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>=\|\1>\i>\\\\|)>|]>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>. By Gaussian hypercontractivity it is enough to control <\equation*> \|\\1>\i>\\\\|)>|]>|)>|]>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>. Let us start then by estimating <\equation*> \\1>\i>\\\\\|)>|)>|]> <\equation*> =\1>\i>-j|\|>\1>\i>\\\\\|)>\>\\\>\|)>|]>. Using () we get equality to <\equation*> =|)>\1>\i>-j|\|>\1>\i>2,k\\>\+k|)>|)>\ <\equation*> \\k|)>\>k|)>\k|)>\>k|)>|\|>+|\|>>|)>/2>|\+|\|>>>\+|\|>>> <\equation*> \\1>\i>\supp\|)>|)>,k\supp\|)>|)>>\+k|)>|)>|\|>+|\|>>|)>/2>|\+|\|>>>\+|\|>>> <\equation*> \\1>\i>\supp\|)>|)>,k\supp\|)>|)>>\+k|)>|)>|\|>>|+|\|>>|)>>>\+|\|>>> <\equation*> \\1>\i>\supp\|)>|)>,k\supp\|)>|)>>2j|)>-i2\>>\+k|)>|)> <\equation*> \2q>2i-2\i|)>-i2\>>=2q>2|)>|)>>>. So if \0>, then for any \-1-d/2|)>/2\> <\equation*> \\1>\i>\\\\\|)>|)>|]>\2|)>|)>>*p> and by the same arguments <\equation*> \\1>\i>\\\\\|)>|)>|]>\2|)>|)>>*p>. Since \\\\-\\\\\=\\\\\+\\\\\>, we have for any sufficiently small \0> and for arbitrarily large <\equation*> \|\\>,\\|)>-\\>,\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>\2|)>|)>2*p>*p>. Now we use the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma to conclude that \>,\\|)>> can be chosen to almost surely belong to ,C-1>|)>> for all \\-d/2>. <\lemma> Let \\> and define the operator |)>> > on \>. Denote the semigroup associated to by :t\0|)>>. Then we have for \\\\> and u\C>>: <\equation*> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>t-\|2\>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>. Furthermore there exists 0> such that for \\>\ <\equation*> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>e|u|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> Using the same arguments as the ones used in the proof of the heat semigroup estimate Lemma 2.4 of , we obtain that if > has its support in an annulus >, then there exist 0> depending on > but not on , such that <\equation> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>>\C e> t>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>. The same arguments also show that if > has its support in a ball >, then there exists a constant \0> such that <\equation> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>>\C |u|\<\|\|\>>>>. Let us use these estimates to obtain our claimed estimate on the semigroup acting in Besov spaces. We have Su=\e|\|>>t>\|)>=Su|)>>. Using () and |)>>, we obtain <\equation*> |\Su|\<\|\|\>>>>\C |\u|\<\|\|\>>>>and|\Su|\<\|\|\>>>>\C ej> t>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>. Thus for any > <\equation*> <\equation*> |2>|\Su|\<\|\|\>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|2-\|)>> ej>>>|\u|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|2-\|)>> ej>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>. Next we have the estimate <\equation*> |2-\|)>> ej>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup0>-\>e>>|}>=sup0>-\|)>/\>e>|}>. If \\>, the maximum is taken in /-\|)>|)>>>, and has the value <\equation*> sup0>-\>e>>|}>=/-\|)>|]>-\|2\>>t-\|2\>>e-\|2\>>\,\>t-\|2\>>. If \\>, then we use the better estimate <\equation*> |2-\|)>> ej>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup>-\>e>>|}>=2-\>e>>, where the second step follows because -\>e>>> is a decreasing function on ||]>0,\>>. <\corollary> Let \0>, C-1>>, C>>. Then for any 0>, \0> <\equation*> |Su|\<\|\|\>>>\t-\|2\>>|u|\<\|\|\>>-1>and|Sv|\<\|\|\>>>\t-\|2\>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>. For 0> and \\> we introduce the notation >=C;C>;\|)>|)>> and for C>>, <\equation*> |u|\<\|\|\>>>>=sups\t>|u|\<\|\|\>>>. <\definition> Let \>, -d/2\1/3>, and \||]>1/3,\-d/2>>. Let \C>>. C>> is a mild solution to <\equation> \u=-A u+g\u+\ with initial condition >, if =u-\> satisfies <\equation*> \=S-\|)>+Sg+\|)>\+\|)>\s+\S\\s. <\with|color|black> <\remark> Just like in , pp. 9-10, we can show that this definition is independent of >. Before we prove the existence of a unique solution to (), let us establish some a priori estimates. To keep the notation more concise, we introduce a ``rough path norm''. <\definition> Let \1/3> and C>,\|)>> with associated area >x|)>\C-1>,\\\,\|)>|)>>. In that case we write =>x|)>|)>\\>> and define the ``norm'' <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>=|x|\<\|\|\>>>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|\x|\<\|\|\>>-1>+|\>x|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1>. For 0> we also introduce the space >=C,\>|)>> with ``norm'' <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>=supt>|,\>,\\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>. <\lemma> Let \> and \\>>. Let \0>, \C>>, C>. Then for every > <\equation*> |S+x|)>\+x|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t-\|2\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. <\proof> Using Corollary and paraproduct estimates, we have for the classically defined part <\equation*> |S+x|)>\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t|2\>>|g+x|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>\t|2\>>|g+x|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation> \t|2\>>|g|\<\|\|\>>>>|\\|\<\|\|\>>>\t|2\>>|g|\<\|\|\>>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>. From Lemma we get for the ``rough part'' <\equation> |g+x|)>\x|\<\|\|\>>-1>\|g+x|)>|\<\|\|\>>,\>|\x|\<\|\|\>>-1>+|x|\<\|\|\>>>|\x|\<\|\|\>>-1>+|\>x|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1>|)>. Theorem gives <\equation> |g+x|)>|\<\|\|\>>,\>\x\<\|\|\>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)> x\<\|\|\>,\>|)>\x\<\|\|\>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)> . Combining (), (), and Corollary we obtain <\equation> |S+x|)>\x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t-\|2\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>. Combining () and (), the proof is complete. <\lemma> Let \||]>1/3,1/2>> and \\>>. Let \0>, \,\\C>>, C>. Then for every 0> <\equation*> |S+x|)>\+x|)>|)>-S+x|)>\+x|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \t-\|2\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> We have <\equation*> g+x|)>\+x|)>-g+x|)>\+x|)>=A+B+C, where <\equation*> A=+x|)>-g+x|)>|)>\x,B=+x|)>- g+x|)>|)>\\,C=g+x|)>\-\\|)>. By Lemma , can be estimated by <\equation*> |+x|)>-g+x|)>|)>\x|\<\|\|\>>-1>\|g+x|)>-g+x|)>|\<\|\|\>>,\>|\|\<\|\|\>>>. A Taylor expansion, Lemma , and Theorem give <\equation*> |g+x|)>-g+x|)>|\<\|\|\>>,\>=||\|>=1>\>g+x+\-\|)>|)>-\|)>>\\|\<\|\|\>>,\> <\equation*> \|\|>=1>|\>g+x+\-\|)>|)>-\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>,\>\\ <\equation*> \|\|>=1>|\>g+x+\-\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>,\>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>\\\|\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>, so that <\equation*> |A|\<\|\|\>>-1>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>. Using a Taylor expansion, the other two terms can be estimated by <\equation*> |+x|)>- g+x|)>|)>\\+g+x|)>\-\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>. The statement now follows from Corollary (using again that |\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>>>). <\theorem> Let \>, -d/2\1/3>, and \||]>2|)>\1/3,-d/2|)>\1/2>>. Let \C>> and C>. Then there exists a unique mild solution to equation (). <\proof> Inspired by, we subtract the contribution of the initial condition and solve for =u-\-S-\|)>>. Let \0> be such that |)>+\\\>. We set up a Picard iteration in >> by defining \0>, and <\equation*> \=Sg+\+S-\|)>|)>\+\+S-\|)>|)>\s+\S\\s. According to Lemma and Corollary we have for all >\ <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>\|Sg+\+S-\|)>|)>\+\+S-\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>+\|S\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\s <\equation*> \>-\|2\>>|\+S-\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>+\-\|2\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|}>\s <\equation*> \,\,T>-\|2\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>+s-\|2\>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\s <\equation*> \,\,T>-\|2\>>-\|2\>>|)>\s|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>. By our choice of >, -\|)>/2\\1>, so that there exists \>, independent of >, such that for all \> <\equation> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>>\|u|\<\|\|\>>>+1|2>. Next we apply Lemma to get for all >, introducing the notation =S-\|)>>, <\equation*> |\-\|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \|Sg+\+U|)>\+\+U|)>-Sg+\+U|)>\+\+U|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\s <\equation*> \>-\|2\>>|\+U|\<\|\|\>>>+|\+U|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>\s <\equation*> \>-\|2\>>-\|2\>>|)>\s|u|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>>. We combine this with () to obtain the existence of a unique local solution on |]>> for suitably small >. It remains to show the existence of a global solution. Let \> be the maximum time for which there exists a solution > on >|\>>. Assume T>|\|\<\|\|\>>>>\\>. Then we can iterate the construction of a local solution on small intervals of length >, where \0> is fixed, and therefore we obtain =T>. But T>|\|\<\|\|\>>>>= \> is impossible, because we get from () <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>>>\F|T/T|\>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\\, where =/2>, and n>> is the -fold iterative application of on . Consider the following equation in >: <\equation> \u=\u+f\, where > is a space white noise on > without time dependence. This is a non-linear generalization of the parabolic Anderson model, see e.g. . In general the regularity of the white noise is \C> so for we have \C> and the regularization provided by the Laplacian would be sufficient to have C>. Heuristically we gain (almost) in the space regularity. The product \> is then clearly not defined according to these scaling relations. The mild solution reads <\equation*> u=Su+S|)>\|)>\s. Now <\equation*> f|)>\=\>|)>,\|)>+\>|)>,\|)>+\>|)>,\|)>and <\equation*> \>|)>,\|)>=\>>|)>,u|)>,\|)>+\>,\|)>=f|)>\>,\|)>+R|)>,u,\|)>+\>,\|)>, where =f|)>-\>|)>,u|)>>. Again the difficult term is >>|)>,u|)>,\|)>> and the commutator estimate Theorem gives that modulo smoother terms it can be rewritten as |)> \>,u|)>>. Now, using the fact that the commutator between the semigroup and the paraproduct is smooth, see Lemma below, we have <\equation*> u=Su+S|)>\|)>\s\Su+S>|)>,\|)>|)>\s <\equation*> \Su+\>|)>,S\|)>\s Therefore we say that is controlled if there exists > such that, modulo (sufficiently) smoother terms, we have <\equation*> u\Su+\>,S\|)>\s. In this case (and if for the moment we ignore the initial condition) we get \; <\equation*> \>,u|)>\\>,\>,S\|)>\s|)>\u\>,S\|)>\s. So here the role of the area is conveniently taken by the expression <\equation*> \>,S\|)> for which we need an estimate as 0>. Recall that |^>|)>\>> is a centered Gaussian process with covariance |^>|^>|)>|)>=\=0>>. Thus we have independently of \> <\equation*> g=\>,S\|)>|)>=|)>\>\1>\k|)>\k|)>er>, and since k|)>\k|)>=0> if \1> <\equation*> g=\>,S\|)>|)>=|)>\>\k|)>\k|)>er>\\>er>\>er>\x\, which will give us divergences inside the time integral. Moreover we have <\equation*> Var>,S\|)>|)>|)>= <\equation*> ,k\\>-j|\|>\1>-j|\|>\1>\i>\i>\+k|)>|)>\k|)>\k|)>\>k|)>\>k|)>e|\|>r>. Since \1> we can estimate |\|>r>\er>> for all \supp\|)>|)>>. And since r\e|)>2r>> for any \c>, we get <\equation*> Var>,S\|)>|)>|)>\2q>2er>\|r>q>e2r>\|r>e2r>. This can be used as above to show that for every \0,\\0> <\equation*> \|\>,S\|)>-g|\<\|\|\>>-\>>|)>\r/2>. In particular this implies that if we set =\>,S\|)>-g\>, then almost surely <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>\r\+\ for all \0>. From these estimates it is then clear that we should really consider <\equation*> \>,\|)>-u*G in the definition of the product, where =g\s> is formally an infinite constant. Motivated by this discussion we now give a meaning to the product in the appropriate space of controlled distributions. Denote for \0>, \\> by ,\>=C>,C>|)>> the space of Hölder continuous functions taking their value in >>, equipped with the norm <\equation*> |u|\<\|\|\>>,\>>=sup>|u|\<\|\|\>>>+supt>|u-u|\<\|\|\>>>|>>. <\definition> Let ,\\0>. We say that C,1-\>> is controlled if for all > <\equation*> u=\>,S\|)>\s+u> where \C,1-\>> and >\C,C>|)>>. In this case we write \,\,T>>> and define the norm <\equation*> |u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>=|u|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+|u|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+|u>|\<\|\|\>>>>. The current formulation of the paralinearization theorem works only for \||]>0,1/2>>. Here we need the case \>, for which we can give a very simple proof. <\lemma> Let \>. If C>> and C>, then <\equation*> |f-\>,u|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>u\<\|\|\>>|)>. <\proof> Since \> we have |u|\<\|\|\>>>\|u|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\u|\<\|\|\>>-1>>, see example 2 on p. 99 of . The estimate for the >>-norm is straightforward, so let us estimate the derivative. By Leibniz' rule and the chain rule we have <\equation*> |\-\>,u|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1> <\equation*> \|\>,\u|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1>+|\>,\u|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1>+|\>|)>,u|)>|\<\|\|\>>-1> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|u|\<\|\|\>>>. \; For \0> we define >=g>\s>. <\theorem> Let ,\\0> and assume that \,\,T>>> and C>. Then the renormalized product <\equation*> f|)>\S>\=f|)>S>\-f|)>uG> converges as \0> to a well defined distribution which we denote by |)>\\>. Moreover we have the explicit representation <\equation*> f|)>\\=\>|)>,\|)>+\>|)>,\|)>+\>|)>-\>|)>,u|)>,\|)>+R|)>,u,\|)> <\equation*> +f|)>-u|)>g\s+f|)>u\\s <\equation*> +f|)>R,S\,\|)>\s+f|)>\>>,\|)>, where each of these terms is well defined, and for \\> <\equation*> |f|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>+|f|)>\\-\>|)>,\|)>|\<\|\|\>>-\>> <\equation*> \\|2>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. <\proof> We will perform a formal expansion of the quantity |)>\> which can be easily rendered rigorous for the regularized product. The subtraction eliminates then the only term which diverges in the limit. All the others are well defined individually due to the control hypothesis on . According to the discussion above, the only non-trivial term in |)>\\> is |)>\>,\|)>>, which is well defined as long as >,\|)>> is well defined and in -\>>. But for this term we have <\equation*> \>,\|)>=\>>,S\|)>,\|)>\s+\>>,\|)> <\equation*> =u\>\,\|)>\s+R,S\,\|)>\s+\>>,\|)> <\equation*> =ug\s+u\\s+R,S\,\|)>\s+\>>,\|)> <\equation*> =uG+-u|)>g\s+u\\s+R,S\,\|)>\s+\>>,\|)> and the first contribution is exactly cancelled by the correction term in the definition of the product. Putting all together we obtain the claimed result. The estimates are shown by a somewhat lengthy but elementary calculation based on paraproduct estimates and Theorem . <\lemma> Let \1> and \\>. Then for all \\+\> <\equation*> |S>|)>-\>v|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t+\-\|2>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> We have <\equation*> S>|)>-\>v|)>=-1>u\v|)>-Su Sv|)>|)>, and the Fourier transform of u\v|)>-Su Sv|)>> has its support in a suitable annulus \>. By Lemma 2.69 of , it suffices to control |Su\v|)>-Su Sv|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>. Let |~>\\|)>> with support in an annulus |~>> be such that |~>\1> on >. Note that <\equation*> Su\v|)>-Su Sv|)>=>gu-Su|)>\v\y, where =\|\|>>|~>\\|)>|)>>. A first order Taylor expansion shows that this equals <\equation*> =|\|>=1>>g\>Su |)>>\\ \v\y. We estimate this by <\equation> |Su\v|)>-Su Sv|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|>=1>|>|\<\|\|\>>>|\>Su|\<\|\|\>>>>|\v|\<\|\|\>>>>, where <\equation*> >|\|>=>g|\|>=>\|\|>>|~>\\|)>|)>|\|>=>|\|>>|~>\\|)>|)>|)>|\|> <\equation*> =|)>>e|\|>>|~>\\|)>+e|\|>>2>|~>|)>\|)>|)>|\|>. In the proof of Lemma 2.4 of it is shown that for \\> with support in an annulus > there exist 0> such that for all \0> <\equation> |\|\|>>\\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\C e>. We apply () to =x>|~>> and to =\>|~>> respectively to get\ <\equation*> |>|\<\|\|\>>>\t2|\|\|>>\|)>>|~>\\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>+2|\|\|>>>|~>|)>\|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation> \+2|)>e>. Combining () and () and using that \0>, we get <\equation*> |Su\v|)>-Su Sv|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\+2|)>e>2|)>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>2>|v|\<\|\|\>>>. Just as in the proof of Lemma we show for \\+\> <\equation*> sup-1>t2+2-\-\|)>>e>+sup-1>2-\|)>>e>\t\t+\-2-\|2>>+t+\-\|2>>\t+\-\|2>>, which completes the proof. Note that -id> is a bounded linear operator on >> with operator norm t>. This can be shown analogously to Lemma , using that >|\|>>-1|)>|\|>\t|\|>+1>> for all > in a ball > and all |\|>\m>. The semigroup property of then allows to show that for any 1>, \\>, C,C>|)>>, \0> and \\/2> we have <\equation> |>S-s>v\s|\<\|\|\>>,\+2-\>>\T|2>-\>|v|\<\|\|\>>>>. We have to choose the values of ,\,\> appropriately. It turns out that the choice \1/3>, \\>, and \-\|)>/2> works well. <\corollary> Let \1/3>, \\>, \\/2>, and \,\,T>>>. Define <\equation*> v=S|)>\\|)>\s. Then \,\,T>>> and =f|)>>. Furthermore for 1> <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+|v->\>|)>,S-s>\|)>\s|\<\|\|\>>,1+\>> <\equation*> \T|2>-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. and <\equation> |v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>=|f|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>|)>. <\proof> According to Theorem , |)>\\\C>>, so that () applied with =\>, =-1-\>, =\-\> gives <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\T-\|2>-\>|f\\|\<\|\|\>>>> <\equation*> \T-\|2>-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. Theorem and () also give <\equation*> |v->S-s>\>|)>,\|)>\s|\<\|\|\>>,2-2\>> <\equation*> \T-\|2>-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. Since \1/3>, we have \1+\>. By Lemma we further have <\equation*> |S\>|)>,\|)>\s-\>|)>,S\|)>\s|\<\|\|\>>> <\equation*> \-\|2>>|f|)>|>|\<\|\|\>>\|>\s\t-\|2>>|\<\|\|\>>f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>. Since \1/3> we have -\|)>/2\-\|)>/2-\>. Thus <\equation*> |v->\>|)>,S-s>\|)>\s|\<\|\|\>>,1+\>> <\equation*> \T-\|2>-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. <\with|color|black> It remains to estimate =f>. But using a first order Taylor expansion, it is easy to see that <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>|)> \; Since the estimate () for the derivative of cannot be controlled by choosing small enough, we need to go one step further back in the Picard iteration. For this purpose we need the following simple observation. <\lemma> Let 0>, \||]>0,1/2>>, and let |)>0>> be a sequence of positive numbers for which \C>,\C>, and for 0>: <\equation*> x\C+\+x|)>. Then <\equation*> sup0> x\>. <\proof> Induction. <\theorem> Let C> and let \C>>. Then there exists a \u|)>>-measurable random time \>, such that equation() has a unique solution on |[>>. <\proof> As before we solve for =u-Su>. For 0> we define the map <\equation*> \:\,\,T>>\\,\,T>>,where\=S+Su|)>\\|)>\s. We have to be a little careful because the supremum over 0> of |Su|\<\|\|\>>>> is not finite. But the explicit representation of the product +S|)>\\> in Theorem shows that we have <\equation*> |f+Su|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>+|f+Su|)>\\-\>+Su|)>,\|)>|\<\|\|\>>-\>> <\equation*> \\|2>>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,s>+|Su|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)> <\equation*> \|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,s>+s|2>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>. Now let 0> be such that |f|\<\|\|\>>>\M>, |\|\<\|\|\>>>\M>, |\|\<\|\|\>>>\s\M> and |u|\<\|\|\>>>\M>. We also assume |v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\>. Since \1>, we obtain just as in Corollary <\equation*> |\|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+|\->\>+Su|)>,S-s>\|)>\s|\<\|\|\>>,1+\>> <\equation*> \T|2>-\>|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|2>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\s|\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|\|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)> <\equation*> \T|2>-\>M|)>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>>M|)> <\equation> \T|2>-\>|)>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>. Furthermore <\equation*> |f>u|)>|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>|v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+|u|\<\|\|\>>>|)> <\equation> \|)>|v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>|)>. We set up a Picard iteration by defining =0> with derivative |)>=0> and then =\|)>> where is to be specified. From () we get <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+||)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\T|2>-\>. and from () <\equation*> ||)>|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>=|f>u|)>|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\. We set |)>>. Then there exists 0> for which <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\Cand|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\C. Now let 1> and assume |v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\m C> and |v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\m C>. We get from () <\equation> |v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>+||)>>|\<\|\|\>>,1+\>>\T|2>-\>C|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)> and from () and then () again <\equation*> ||)>|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>\C|v|\<\|\|\>>,1-\>>|)>\C|2>-\>CB|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>|)> <\equation> \C+T|2>-\>B|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>, where is a positive constant. Combining () and (), we get <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\C+T|2>-\>c|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>+|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>|)>, where > is a positive constant. It is now clear from Lemma that we can choose 0> small enough such that <\equation*> sup0>|v|\<\|\|\>>,\,\,T>\m C. It remains to show the actual contraction property, but given our a priori estimate this is now easy and follows by standard arguments. Thus we obtain the existence of a unique solution up to a random explosion time \0>. <\bibliography|bib|tm-plain|besov.bib> <\bib-list|27> HakimaBessaih, MassimilianoGubinelliFrancescoRusso. The evolution of a random vortex filament. , 33(5):1825--1855, 2005. Jean-MichelBony. Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularites pour les équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires. , 14:209--246, 1981. ZdzisªawBrze¹niak, MassimilianoGubinelliMishaNeklyudov. Global evolution of random vortex filament equation. , , aug 2010. HajerBahouri, Jean-YvesCheminRaphaëlDanchin. . Springer, jan 2011. MichaelCaruanaPeter K.Friz. Partial differential equations driven by rough paths. , 247(1):140--173, jul 2009. MichaelCaruana, Peter K.FrizHaraldOberhauser. A (rough) pathwise approach to a class of non-linear stochastic partial differential equations. , 28(1):27--46, jan 2011. René A.CarmonaStanislav A.Molchanov. , 518. 1994. AurélienDeya, MassimilianoGubinelliSamyTindel. Non-linear rough heat equations. , 153(1):97--147, 2012. JoschaDiehlPeter K.Friz. Backward stochastic differential equations with rough drivers. , 40(4):1715--1758, jul 2012. Peter K.FrizHaraldOberhauser. On the splitting-up method for rough (partial) differential equations. , 251(2):316--338, 2011. Peter K.FrizNicolas B.Victoir. . Cambridge University Press, feb 2010. MassimilianoGubinelli. Controlling rough paths. , 216(1):86--140, 2004. MassimilianoGubinelli. Ramification of rough paths. , 248(4):693--721, 2010. MassimilianoGubinelli, AntoineLejaySamyTindel. Young integrals and SPDEs. , 25(4):307--326, 2006. MassimilianoGubinelliSamyTindel. Rough evolution equations. , 38(1):1--75, 2010. MartinHairer. Rough stochastic PDEs. , 64(11):1547--1585, 2011. MartinHairer. Solving the KPZ equation. , , sep 2011. MartinHairer, JanMaasHendrikWeber. Approximating rough stochastic PDEs. , , dec 2012. MartinHairerHendrikWeber. Rough Burgers-like equations with multiplicative noise. , , dec 2010. Terry J.Lyons. Differential equations driven by rough signals. , 14(2):215--310, 1998. Terry J.Lyons, Michael J.CaruanaThierryLévy. . Springer, 1, jun 2007. TerryLyonsZhongminQian. . Oxford University Press, 2002. DavidNualartSamyTindel. A construction of the rough path above fractional Brownian motion using Volterra's representation. , 39(3):1061--1096, 2011. DanielRevuzMarcYor. . Springer, 3rd, 1999. Hans-JürgenSchmeisserHansTriebel. |>>>, 1987. JérémieUnterberger. A rough path over multidimensional fractional Brownian motion with arbitrary Hurst index by fourier normal ordering. , 120(8):1444--1472, 2010. JérémieUnterberger. Hölder-continuous rough paths by Fourier normal ordering. , 298(1):1--36, 2010. <\initial> <\collection> <\references> <\collection> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <\auxiliary> <\collection> <\associate|bib> gubinelli_young_2006 gubinelli_rough_2010 deya_non-linear_2012 caruana_partial_2009 caruana_rough_2011 friz_splitting-up_2011 diehl_backward_2012 bessaih_evolution_2005 brzezniak_global_2010 hairer_rough_2011 hairer_rough_2010 hairer_solving_2011 hairer_approximating_2012 unterberger_holder-continuous_2010 unterberger_rough_2010 nualart_construction_2011 hairer_rough_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 schmeisser_fourier_1987 bahouri_fourier_2011 bony_calcul_1981 bahouri_fourier_2011 gubinelli_controlling_2004 lyons_differential_2007 lyons_differential_1998 lyons_system_2002 lyons_differential_2007 friz_multidimensional_2010 gubinelli_controlling_2004 gubinelli_ramification_2010 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bony_calcul_1981 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 hairer_rough_2011 revuz_continuous_1999 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 hairer_rough_2010 hairer_rough_2011 carmona_parabolic_1994 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 bahouri_fourier_2011 <\associate|toc> |math-font-series||1.Introduction> |.>>>>|> |Plan of the paper |.>>>>|> > |Notation and conventions |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||2.Paraproducts and controlled paths> |.>>>>|> |2.1.Littlewood-Paley theory |.>>>>|> > |2.2.Bony's paraproduct and Young integrals |.>>>>|> > |2.3.Rough paths and controlled paths |.>>>>|> > |2.4.Controlled distributions and the Besov area |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||3.Controlled paradifferential calculus> |.>>>>|> |3.1.Commutator estimates |.>>>>|> > |3.2.Product of controlled distributions |.>>>>|> > |3.3.Stability under non-linear mappings |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||4.Rough Burgers equation> |.>>>>|> |4.1.Construction of the Besov area |.>>>>|> > |4.2.Semigroup estimates |.>>>>|> > |4.3.Picard iteration |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||5.Heat equation with rough space dependence> |.>>>>|> |math-font-series||Bibliography> |.>>>>|>